Poster presented at the workshop Rural signing varieties: social dynamics and linguistic structure, results from the EuroBABEL project on 'Endangered Sign Languages in Village Communities', Leiden, 7th November 2012
DOCUMENT
Presentatie op congres The Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI) is a tool for assessing functional sign language skill. Based on the Language Aptitude Test, it uses a recorded 20 minute conversation between a skilled interviewer and the candidate. The interview uses an ad hoc series of probing and challenging questions to elicit the candidate’s best use of the sign language in topics relating to the candidate’s work, family/background, and leisure activities. This video language sample is then analyzed to determine the candidate’s rating on the SLPI Rating Scale. The rating process documents vocabulary, grammar and discourse, and follows a specified protocol that includes specific examples from the interview. The SLPI is used widely in the US and Canada with American Sign Language, and one of the presenters has adapted it for use with South African Sign Language. The presenters have recently adapted the SLPI for use with Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). While the interview process is the same regardless of the sign language, two aspects of the adaptation for NGT required work: 1) modifying the grammar analysis to match NGT grammar; and 2) modifying the Rating Scale to align with that of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR). This ICED presentation will include: 1) a thorough description of SLPI goals, processes and implementation; 2) modifications for NGT grammar; and 3) modifications to align with the CEFR.
DOCUMENT
This paper identifies some common and specific pitfalls in the development of sign language technologies targeted at deaf communities, with a specific focus on signing avatars. It makes the call to urgently interrogate some of the ideologies behind those technologies, including issues of ethical and responsible development. The paper addresses four separate and interlinked issues: ideologies about deaf people and mediated communication, bias in data sets and learning, user feedback, and applications of the technologies. The paper ends with several take away points for both technology developers and deaf NGOs. Technology developers should give more consideration to diversifying their team and working interdisciplinary, and be mindful of the biases that inevitably creep into data sets. There should also be a consideration of the technologies’ end users. Sign language interpreters are not the end users nor should they be seen as the benchmark for language use. Technology developers and deaf NGOs can engage in a dialogue about how to prioritize application domains and prioritize within application domains. Finally, deaf NGOs policy statements will need to take a longer view, and use avatars to think of a significantly better system compared to what sign language interpreting services can provide.
LINK
This presentation explores various transformations that inform Deaf Studies research, ranging from transformations in deaf networks to larger sign language networks and transformations in applied linguistics, society, and language ideologies, and the related potential impact on sign language policy and revitalisation. After discussing some new research lenses in Deaf Studies, such as visual methods, the presentation suggests some ways forward for Deaf Studies in terms of research priorities and rights discourses.
LINK
Growing research in sign language recognition, generation, and translation AI has been accompanied by calls for ethical development of such technologies. While these works are crucial to helping individual researchers do better, there is a notable lack of discussion of systemic biases or analysis of rhetoric that shape the research questions and methods in the field, especially as it remains dominated by hearing non-signing researchers. Therefore, we conduct a systematic review of 101 recent papers in sign language AI. Our analysis identifies significant biases in the current state of sign language AI research, including an overfocus on addressing perceived communication barriers, a lack of use of representative datasets, use of annotations lacking linguistic foundations, and development of methods that build on flawed models. We take the position that the field lacks meaningful input from Deaf stakeholders, and is instead driven by what decisions are the most convenient or perceived as important to hearing researchers. We end with a call to action: the field must make space for Deaf researchers to lead the conversation in sign language AI.
LINK
This research report contains the findings of an international study consisting of three online ‘living’ surveys. The surveys focused on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sign language interpreters’ working practices, how this was experienced by them, and how digital disruption caused by the pandemic is impacting and innovating the sign language interpreting profession. The study was carried out between April 2020 and July 2020; the largest contingent of respondents over all three surveys were from the U.S., followed by the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Belgium. Respondents commented that the crisis will probably accelerate the need for remote interpreting training in interpreter training programs. Another resurfacing issue was the perceived need for sign language interpreting students to have face-to-face practice and live mentoring. Respondents commented on what benefits they thought remote interpreting might bring to the table, both for themselves and for deaf people. In general, the most significant benefits that were mentioned were flexibility and the possibility to improve efficiency and availability of sign language interpreting services. Notwithstanding these benefits, a significant number of respondents claimed that remote interpreting is more stressful than face-to-face interpreting and requires a heavier cognitive load.
DOCUMENT
This paper introduces our special issue about ideologies in sign language vitality and revitalization and discusses ideologies related to the vitality of sign languages. Rather than taking for granted the notions of vitality and endangerment or developing criteria for measuring sign language vitality, the papers in this issue will provide a discursive construction of sign language endangerment. This construction in turn provides critical and historical reflection on how vitality has emerged as a concern for sign languages in specific local, national, and international contexts, the actors and institutions bringing forward this framing, and in whose interest it is to promote such discourses. The issue will survey how and by whom these ideologies are described, mobilized and legitimized, and what conceptualizations of language are emphasized and by whom.
LINK
This paper gives an overview of the most common procedures in research design, choice of subjects, transcription and documentation in the field of sign language acquisition.
DOCUMENT
This article discusses the rationale for using language diaries as a method to evaluate language use and language choice in multilingual contexts, as well as the benefits and limitations of this approach vis-à-vis other research methods. This is illustrated using examples from two contexts: Flemish Sign Language/Dutch bilinguals in Flanders and Gaelic/English bilinguals in the Western Isles of Scotland. In both cases, the language diaries were part of a larger mixed-method study which aimed to evaluate language use and language choice in contexts in which the majority language is in almost all instances the unmarked choice. Language diaries provide a new perspective on individual language practices as they allow for an evaluation of contextualised examples of language use and give insight into the factors that drive language and modality choice, and language ideologies. Language diaries give participants ownership over the information shared with the researcher and provide access to a number of different domains. Despite being based on self-reported practices, their situated nature demonstrates how language use can change through personal circumstances. This in turn contributes to a greater understanding of the use of Flemish Sign Language and Gaelic in the wider sociolinguistic contexts in which these languages exist.
LINK
ion of verb agreement by hearing learners of a sign language. During a 2-year period, 14 novel learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) with a spoken language background performed an elicitation task 15 times. Seven deaf native signers and NGT teachers performed the same task to serve as a benchmark group. The results obtained show that for some learners, the verb agreement system of NGT was difficult to master, despite numerous examples in the input. As compared to the benchmark group, learners tended to omit agreement markers on verbs that could be modified, did not always correctly use established locations associated with discourse referents, and made characteristic errors with respect to properties that are important in the expression of agreement (movement and orientation). The outcomes of the study are of value to practitioners in the field, as they are informative with regard to the nature of the learning process during the first stages of learning a sign language.
DOCUMENT
